Kolkata Court January 1894 Judgments
Hurri Pershad Chowdhry Vs. Nasib Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal542
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of Bhagalpur, affirming the judgment of the Munsif of Banka. The appellant before us applied to the Munsif on the 9th February 1892 for execution of a decree obtained by him against the respondents on the 18th April 1888. He had sued the respondents on a bond, and a compromise had been effected, making the sum claimed payable by instalments. This compromise was given effect to in the decree of the 18th April 1888. The first instalment was payable on the 26th April 1888, and admittedly more than three years have elapsed between that date and the date of the application to the Munsif for execution. But the dates of payment of the other instalments are within three years of the date of the application to the Munsif. The decree of the 18th April 1888 provides that if the instalments are not paid on the dates fixed for their payments, then 'the plaintiff will have the power to cancel the instalments and realiz...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogaban Chunder Das and ors. Vs. Mokunda Bullav Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal514
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent for the years 1295 and 1296 brought before the Deputy Collector of Cuttack under the provisions of Act X of 1859.2. It appears that the plaintiffs had previously instituted a suit for the rent of the same period in the same Court; but before the trial came on, certain formal defects having been discovered in the suit, an application was made by the plaintiffs to be allowed to withdraw it, with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action. The suit was accordingly allowed to be withdrawn; but no distinct order was recorded by the Revenue Court permitting the plaintiffs to bring a fresh suit.3. The defendant contended in the Court of First Instance, and the contention has been repeated before us in second appeal, though it seems to have been practically abandoned in the Court of Appeal below, that the provisions of Section 373 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to suits under Act X of 1859; and that...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswar Mahton and ors. Vs. Dilu Mahton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal550
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holder for. ascertainment and recovery of mesne profits in terms of an order made in the decree passed between the parties.2. It appears that the suit, which was instituted in the Munsif's Court, was for recovery of possession of certain lands upon the ground of illegal dispossession, and it was valued at Rs. 950 being the value of the lands in question. No mesne profits were claimed up to date of suit, there being perhaps none to be recovered, the suit being instituted shortly after the dispossession, but it was prayed in the plaint that the mesne profits from the date of suit to that of recovery of possession as might be ascertained in execution of the decree should be awarded to the plaintiff. And a decree was passed in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff.3. The decree-holder presented his petition to the Munsif, asking that the amount of mesne profits might be assessed, and he roughly estim...
Tag this Judgment!Minatoonnessa Bibee and ors. Vs. Khatoonnessa Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal479
Sale, J.1. The only point remaining to be determined is as to whether in the circumstances I ought to make an order for possession to be given to the purchaser. The question depends on whether a purchaser from a Receiver is entitled to be put in the same position as a purchaser at a sale by the Registrar, or at an execution sale under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. A sale by the Registrar is made under an order of the Court, and is binding on all parties to the suit. So is a sale by a Receiver. In what particular, then, does it differ from a sale by the Registrar? In the case of Chandra Nath Biswas v. Biswa Nath Biswas 6 B.L.R. 492 it appears that an application was made by a Receiver to compel a defaulting purchaser to come in and complete his purchase. The learned Judge (MACPHERSON, J.) held that the application was irregular in form and dismissed it, but in the course of his judgment he made observations which seem to show that he considered that a sale by a Receiver st...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Lall Mullick and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal528
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The facts out of which this question arises are so fully stated by the learned Judge in the Court below that I need not relate them here.2. I do not think it necessary to express an opinion as to whether the resolution of the Commissioners of the 26th of January 1883 and the report of the medical men submitted in pursuance of it constituted a 'proceeding pending' within the meaning of Section 2 of Act II of 1888, because I think that even if it were, and so must be deemed to have been commenced under the new Act, the subsequent proceedings were not in accordance with the new Act, and as the old Act was not in force when they were taken, the Municipality had no power by virtue of its provisions to deal with the plaintiffs' land, and that in doing so they committed a trespass.3. All that Section 2 provides is that pending proceedings which may have been commenced under any repealed Act shall be deemed to have been commenced under the new one, but though commence...
Tag this Judgment!Khettramoni Dasi Vs. Shyama Churn Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal539
Beverley and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. In this case a preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal will lie against the order of the learned District Judge, and we are of opinion that this objection is well founded. It is contended that under Section 86 of the Probate and Administration Act the order is appealable. That section runs as follows: 'Every order made by a District Judge or district delegate by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals. 'Reading that section with Section 53* of the same Act we are of opinion that it only allows an appeal to this Court in cases in which an appeal is allowable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Now, this is an appeal against an order refusing to make the appellant a party defendant in the application for probate; in other words, to add her as a defendant in the case under the provisions of Section 32 of the Code. It ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Hari Banerjee Vs. Heera Lal Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal269
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Prinsep and Norris, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the Second Judge of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta under Section 617, Code of Civil Procedure. In a suit before that Court the defendant appeared, and on his application the trial was adjourned. It is unnecessary to describe the course of the suit further than to state that on the 30th of June, when the case was fixed for trial, the defendant did not appear, and that after witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, the claim was decreed. The point now referred to us is whether, on the application of the defendant, this matter can be dealt with under Section 108 of the Code, so as to set aside the decree passed on the 30th of June as an ex parte decree and to proceed with the trial. Objection might be taken to the manner in which this reference has been made. It is sufficient to say that no objection was pressed before us, and consequently we are prepared to express our opinion on the case sub...
Tag this Judgment!Hewetson Vs. Deas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal526
Beverley and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. We think that, having regard to the fact that the insolvency alleged took place so long ago as in 1873, and that the second appeal in this case has been admitted by a Bench of this Court under Section 551* of the Code, we ought not to call upon the plaintiff, appellant, to furnish security. The rule will, therefore, be discharged, hut without costs.* Power to confirm decision of lower Court without sending it notice.[Section 551 : The Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, after fixing a time for hearing the appellant or his pleader, and hearing him accordingly if he appears at such time, confirm the decision of the Court against whose decree the appeal is made, without sending notice of the appeal to such Court and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleader; but in such case the confirmation shall be notified to the same Court.]...
Tag this Judgment!Addya Sundari Mittra and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Dutt, Chairman of the Ba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal319
Beverley, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice RAMPINI sitting alone on the Appellate side of this Court, in a suit which was brought under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been assessed by the Muncipal commissioners of Barisal to pay a tax under Section 87 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, notwithstanding the fact that they did not occupy any holding within the Municipality, and they prayed for a declaration that a resolution of the Commissioners holding them liable to be assessed to the tax was illegal and inoperative.3. In answer the Chairman of the Municipality contended, first, that the order of the Commissioners in the matter was under the Act final and conclusive and could not be questioned in the Civil Court, and, on the merits, that the plaintiffs were liable to assessment by reason of their employing as their am-mukhtar or agent a person who occupied a holding within the Municipality, notwithstanding that that...
Tag this Judgment!C.W. Griffiths Vs. Tezia Dosadh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal263
Prinsep and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is a case under Act XIII of 1859, in which the Magistrate has refused to act against a cooly woman under contract to a tea garden, who has already been committed to prison under the Act, but who on expiry of the sentence has again refused to perform her contract. Mr. Henderson on the authority of some English cases--Unwin v. Clarke L.R. 1 Q.B. 417 and Cutler v. Turner L.R. 9 Q.B. 502 under the English Statute 4 Geo. IV., Cap. 34, Section 3--contends that a person under contract is liable for successive breaches of the same contract. These cases in our opinion are not completely in point, owing to the difference between the Statute and the Indian Act. The two cases cited proceed on the terms of the Statute. The parts of the Statute upon which the judgments were delivered are not to be found in the Indian Act, and the reasons given for those judgments are consequently not applicable. It is sufficient to state that there is no power given by the Indian Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »